Monthly Archives

Syndicate

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Part of what columnists do to fill space and poke sticks at the ribs of establishment is come up with schemes to improve the sport of horse racing. It’s like the Algonquin Table with less intelligent and poorly dressed writers. The latest in his effort to exact a polarizing and, quite frankly, practical option to the Kentucky Derby is New York Post writer Ed Fountaine. I love it. And here’s why: the Kentucky Derby Machine has leveraged its tradition to hijack the three-year-olds for close to 50 percent of the entire racing calendar.

Rehash: Fountaine suggests taking the superior influx of casino money to make an Empire State Triathlon to rival the classic Triple Crown. His plan would have a derby—the New York City Invitational—run at a 1 ¼ miles at Belmont Park, purse $4 million. Then the Belmont Stakes, then the Travers, with bonuses that would give Gordon Gekko a stroke.

So often a three-year-old’s career is done after running through that perilous mill. Just look at the trainers who condition most of the three-year-olds. Where are their horses? Nick Kling wrote a good piece about Pletcher’s horses. Do the Google.

The Kentucky Derby should be the richest purse in America. Tradition only carries you so far. To think the Pennsylvania Derby and the Haskell Invitational are only $1 million behind the Derby strikes me as cause for the Derby to up its hand.

I’ve maintained—and so have others—that the 20-horse field in the Derby messes up horses, causes too much chaos and serves only to 1.) Increase betting handle and 2.) Make for a good television product. Both serve Churchill Downs Inc. and NBC at the expense of horses.

Fountaine’s plan limits the field to 14 horses—an awesome spectacle nonetheless. I might change the distance of the race. I’d make it 1 1/8th miles, run it out of the chute to make it less physically taxing. This modern-day thoroughbred doesn’t handle 10 furlongs the way it used to. A lack-of-a-better-winner crosses the line first in the Derby, but does he really “get” 10 furlongs? Relative to his peers, yes, but in the grand scheme of the breed? Not really.

Perhaps the modern day three-year-old should only run nine furlongs, leaving races <10 furlongs to older horses who are better developed. But that could be the topic of another post. Onward!

Fountaine writes, “The NYC Invitational would be the first leg of a three-race series, together with the Belmont Stakes — still run at 1 ½ miles, but pushed back a week — and the Travers, both of which have their purses increased to $2 million. Call it the “Empire State Triathlon.” Any horse that wins two of the three gets a $1 million bonus. Win all three, the bonus is $2 million.”

This is how you make it rain! He also says that it only takes one or two star horses for this to catch fire and I already know of one New York owner who would likely welcome this: Mike Repole.

Love him or hate him, he loves his New York racing and if the money’s there, he’ll bring his horse talent. He skipped the Breeders’ Cup with his best horses this year and only won the Cigar Mile and a slew of juvenile races.

Eventually he’ll have more Uncle Mo and Stay Thirsty-calibre talent and if you tell him he can race him or her for $4 million at Belmont Park in a field limited to 14 horses who ran at New York tracks, my feeling is he’ll say, “Yes.” No wait, “Hell, yes!”

As we know, B, lots of Derbies are already 9 furlongs--then class or race dynamics takes the winner the rest of the way: Wayne Lukas has been calling for a 9-furlong Derby for years.

As an old school traditionalist, I hate the idea, but it certainly isn’t an impractical notion.

If Ed’s idea were ever adopted, the notion of a bigger-pursed, shorter event just might draw those star 3-year-olds you referenced.

Tell voters they can’t vote and they’ll stand in line for 7 hours. Tell horsemen they can’t run for big money in easier spots and who knows what could happen?

Indeed, NY-based Mike Repole probably would support the plan, already having shown that he lives by his own standards.

But, really, wouldn’t a REPLICA of the Travers canoe do..? And while a charitable donation to secure the iconic symbol was a noble gesture for the trade-off, the NYRA should have said no, politely but emphatically.

If racing has suggested one supposed immutable truth over the years it’s that no one is--or should be--bigger than the game.

You and Ed might be playing with fire on this one. However, it will be interesting to see whether something like this--given all the new-normals we live with every day--has legs.

The Kentucky Derby is the Kentucky Derby because it’s the Kentucky Derby. It is the number one answer given when people are asked why they got in the game. Not the only answer, but far and away the most popular.

Imagine some Russian Oil tycoon approaching Lindsay Vonn before the 2014 Olympic Games and offering her 10 million dollars to ski instead in a race he is sponsoring on the same weekend.

The offer would be rejected out of hand. She may make more money on that given day, but long term her market value will suffer by missing out on a competition that is revered worldwide. Not to mention the fact that she has spent the last 28 years getting up at 4:30 on cold mornings for her moment(s) with that medal around her neck - not for moments where she retrieves her bank statement.

I believe the same idea applies to the Derby. An alternative Derby is a dumb idea. It makes as much sense as campaigning for an alternative to Christmas (celebrate the birth of our alternative Jesus and you’ll get twice the presents!!)

Another turf writer that can’t see the forest beyond the lone tree in front of him. For decades various racetracks have presented stake races with six (now seven) figure purses, for reasons that leave me nonplussed; how these stake races have managed to develope new horseplayers also has me scratching.

Turf writers, the remaining few, can’t seem to comprehend that Thoroughred racing is virtually dead, kept alive by casino dole; that for things to change, the emphasis must be on the gambling aspects, not the damn horse - would Thoroughbred racing be in such deep pucky if stake races were the draw?

I sure would like to be convinced that another series of stake races, with seven figure purses, is going to attract new bettors to the ‘game’. A series that will make a few owners, trainers, and jockeys richer, while the people who enter the racetrack through the front gate, having paid for parking, admission, and a paper hope to win a couple of races after shoving their own money through the betting window.

“Play it again Sam”: It’s about gambling, about cashing tickets ...... Thus, the real question is, why stake races with huge purses when bettors can’t tell the difference between a claiming race and a stake race; or stated another way, why a two million purse when a $50,000 purse will accomplish the same thing, and attract the same thoroughbreds?

Ideas like this 1.) Will never happen, but it makes for some Internet water cooler banter like this. 2.) It has the potential to make said cornerstones stronger. If the Derby loses its talent perhaps it will be forced to pander to purse dollars. The Good Ol’ Boys need a whack on the Heinekin every now and then. (Well, any chance I ever had of winning an Eclipse Award just went out the door).

My man Hayward always said “Saratoga should be enough” when needled to raise purses. So, the Derby, in all likelihood, should be enough, although it could stand to raise its purse.

Keep your stinkin’ hands off my Kentucky Derby. Next, some idgit will suggest changing the song when they come onto the track to “Cat Scratch Fever.” The Kentucky Derby is one mile and one quarter. It is run the 1st Saturday in May. The only thing I agree on is that the best 20 horses should be put in the gate, and how to do that is next to impossible with all the monetary agendas out there. Another thing, who care what Mike Repole thinks; a neophyte newbie. Having billions does not make you a racing officianado. He has no say as far as I’m concerned. He can buy his own country, build his own racetrack, and start his own traditions if he wants, and who cares if his horses don’t compete. His loss.

The Kentucky Derby is the MASTER! Yes the drug! Horseplayers, owners/sheiks, breeders and trainers are the PUPPETS! OBEY YOUR MASTER!

For the next 5 months, lowlife horseplayers like me will eat, drink, sleep the Kentucky Derby. It’s what we do. Except commentator #4 who is like the hamster treading on the wheel over and over again, as we watch through the cage. OBEY YOUR HAMSTER! Play it again Sam indeed!

I’ve been thinking (yea, it hurts). Another year of Thoroughbred racing is drawing to a close and it’s the same ol’, same ol’ as prior years: attendance down, handle down, and most racetracks dependent on casino dole. And, in a few weeks, turf writers will once again poise their pens to create and embellish the so-called road to the Kentucky Derby, turning three-year-old thoroughbreds, usually trained by Pletcher and Baffert, into super athletes (a horse, mind you).

So, I ask myself if the Derby is the pinnacle then why is Thoroughbred racing in such dire straights?
The Triple Crown races, Travers, Pacific Classic, and the Breeders’ Cup all draw substantial crowds, yet the very next day the racetrack is void of people. What happened? Where did the people, err bettors, go? Seems quite clear to me that those in attendance for these hyped stake races are event driven and not interested in gambling on the horses the next day, week, or month. Thus, to me, the Derby and the other ‘event’ stake races actually do nothing in creating newbies, as they have been in existence yearly for decades, yet attendance and handle continues to plummet.

Now, a genius is proposing to establish a Triple Crown series in New York, using of course casino dole, when empirical evidence suggests that such does not grow racing by attracting newbies.

The year 2013 will be precisely like previous years, where the small amount of print representing Thoroughbred racing written by turf writers will cover the weekly stake race here and there, as the young people gamble elsewhere oblivious to Thoroughbred racing’s gambling menu; and I, and my group of sharpies, work the Parx, Delaware, Laurel/Pimlico circuits very aware of the gambling possibilities and oblivious to any and all stake races.

WMC, just for the record, handle is up slightly for the year. Wonder if that trend will continue in 2013.

** Due to recent inappropriate salacious comments and personal attacks in our comment sections, we are now requiring users to register. It is a quick, one-time-only process requiring e-mail verification. The option to automatically login in future visits is incorporated into the new security measure.

We apologize for the minor inconvenience but felt it necessary to take this measure in the best interests of all our readers. Many thanks for your understanding, helpful suggestions, and loyal support. -- The HRI Management Team **

*** HorseRaceInsider will delete any comment that engages in personal attacks directed at anyone, uses foul language, or one made by an imposter using another’s name to express an opinion or comment.

HRI will not, however, edit or discourage those who, with intellectual honesty, disagree with HRI staffers or other readers. We also will not, as is done on some racing sites, edit disagreeable or negative commentary in the interests of commerce.